Have the Same Mind

“Have the same mind.” Okay, yes, well. How about we look at some of the other texts assigned to this Sunday? Maybe there is something there that is within the realm of possibility. This just seems out of reach. Or maybe we have decided that this isn’t all that important. Or not as important as being right, standing firm, holding on to principles and doctrines. In our hierarchy of behaviors, having the same mind isn’t very high on the list, or so it seems.

Yet just reading verse 10 will tell us how seriously Paul takes it as he makes his approach to all that is going on in the church at Corinth.

How many times does he say the same thing in that single verse? “Be in agreement” and “no divisions among you” and “be united in the same mind” and “the same purpose.” All repetitions or at best nuances of the same idea. For Paul, what is tearing the church apart is the fact that they don’t agree. We’re still in chapter 1, there is a lot more to come, and yet we start here, after the greeting and the establishing of credentials; we get this – be of the same mind.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be all that keen in telling us exactly what it means to be of the same mind. Does it mean that we have to agree on every single point of doctrine and ethics? Does it mean that we have to read the scriptures in exactly the same way every time? Does it mean that there is absolutely no room for differences or nuance? That you have to apply the word to your life in exactly the same way that I apply the word in mine?

There are those who would argue that this doctrinal lockstep is what he is talking about. But then these folk might also agree that there can be differences in application or in priorities. Differences seem inevitable when dealing with human beings who are made differently and who have different experiences and histories. Where is the line, then? How do we know when we’ve drifted from the accepted thought process?

What if we back up a moment and ask what Paul might have had in mind when he told the church in Corinth to be of the same mind? The first thing to note is that he addresses them as “brothers and sisters.” He uses a familial reference, even when trying to correct their behavior or at least their thinking about their behavior. “Brothers and sisters,” he says. We are connected, we are united, we are the family that was created not by blood, but by the life and witness and death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Even in a conflicted situation, there needs to be a sense of connection, a belief in community. So, might we say that being of the same mind is that we all agree that our primary effort is in building up the body; or as Commander Spock said to his friend Admiral Kirk in the second Star Trek film – “the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” (I know, he wasn’t the first to say that, but it was a moving scene, you must admit.)

So, does this mean that we surrender truth? Or right? In favor of just sticking together no matter what? Of course not. Paul is writing this letter to correct behaviors and understandings that he argues are wrong, not of Christ, he says. But it does mean that there are ways we will go about making our arguments; there are behaviors that we will not accept as we seek reconciliation and new understandings. We won’t tear one another down; we won’t call names and point fingers; and we certainly won’t tell others not in the community what terrible people we are saddled with in the body of Christ. There is a call to a high behavior, no matter how frustrated or upset we get. There is nothing here about giving up trying to find ways of coming to a common mind.

Plus, and this is key: we listen as well as speak. “Where does that come from?” you ask? The next verses: “I belong to Paul” or “I belong to Cephas” or Apollos or Christ. (Wait, Christ? Hang on we’ll come back to that one.) What this sounds like is what psychologists call “confirmation bias.” We listen only to the ones who confirm what we already believe. We aren’t challenged to look at something in another way. We exist in our echo chambers, repeating our understandings and our beliefs, rather than digging deeper into the source of those beliefs and being willing to be challenged to another way of thinking or applying.

Okay, Paul, Cephas and Apollos, maybe. But Christ? Why did Paul include that name on this list? As if there was some problem with saying, “I’m following Christ.” Actually, it seems as though that one should be the antidote to the problems, rather than an additional division or a separate camp to follow. And that would be true in the best of situations. We can and should always call upon Christ to be the arbiter of our disputes and disagreements and multiple interpretations. Except that too often, we claim Christ as one who always agrees with me but not with you. And that to disagree with me is to disagree with Christ. The other side is not just wrong, but they are anti-Christ, which is about the worst thing we can think to say about them. Christ is not our exclusive property, no matter how “right” we might be. We cannot claim that only we follow Christ, even as we seek to communicate the Christ we have come to know.

It is hard to discern why Paul goes off to talk about baptism and what he did and didn’t do regarding that sacrament. How does it add to the discussion, one can’t help but wonder? Perhaps it has less to do with the sacrament and more to do with the budding institution that is growing up. Paul wants to maintain a “higher” or larger view of the movement and to concentrate on proclamation and not on church building. Perhaps this is an admission that by their closer view, they are doing what is necessary to maintain the purity of the church. But from his point of view, it looks very different. Maybe he is asking us to consider how our internal squabbles look to the wider world. They don’t get wrapped up in the detail of the theology behind the debate, rather they only see how we treat one another when we disagree, and that reflects badly on the larger church. So, he reminds us the crux of our proclamation looks very different from the outside.

That might be a leap, I acknowledge. But the call to watch how we live out our faith is clear. Even when we disagree, even when we have differences of interpretation, can we be on the same mind that Christ is the way of hope and of salvation? Can we come back to the core and find common ground even as we continue to move in different directions? Can we live in grace always?